You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

February 25, 2021

Vietnam Issues New Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection

On February 9, 2021, Vietnam’s Ministry of Public Security (MPS) finally released the full text of the Draft Decree on Personal Data Protection (the “Draft”) for public consultation, after having released an outline in December 2019, with an ambitious goal for the Draft to be promulgated and take effect on December 1, 2021.

The Draft is divided into six chapters and 30 articles, providing comprehensive coverage of personal data protection and some brand-new requirements. Notable contents of the Draft include the following:

  1. Re-categorization of personal data into basic personal data and sensitive personal data;
  2. New data processing requirements, including new legal bases for data processing and disclosure without consent; specification of the forms of consent; regulations for data processing for research and statistical purposes and automated data processing; and time limits for data retention;
  3. New data protection measures, including de-identification/encryption requirements, appointment of data protection officers, data accessibility from government authorities, and registration for processing of sensitive data and cross-border transfer of data;
  4. Establishment of a new Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) under the MPS; and
  5. New administrative sanctions for violations, including fines of up to 5% of the revenues earned from violating activities.

Among the various newly introduced requirements proposed in the Draft, Article 20 (Registration of Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) and Article 21 (Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Data) are notably problematic, and seem infeasible for the operation of various businesses and industries.

Article 20 – Registration of Processing of Sensitive Personal Data 

The Draft’s Article 20 requires that sensitive personal data be registered with the PDPC prior to processing. The scope of sensitive personal data as defined in the Draft ranges from specific types of data such as gender, biometrics, criminal records, and location to very broad concepts such as political and religious views and social relationships.

Among the required contents of the registration application for processing of personal data is an impact assessment report that clearly points out the potential harm to data subjects due to such proposed processing and measures to manage, minimize, or eliminate such harm. The PDPC will process the applications within 20 working days from the date of receipt of a valid application, which means the date that all information and documents provided in the application are acceptable to the officers in charge.

Although the government’s intent is to protect persons and entities covered by the Draft from any improper and harmful processing of their personal data—a laudable goal—this registration requirement potentially creates a huge impact on businesses in terms of time, costs, and administrative procedures. In reality, almost every company, whether local or overseas entity, needs to process its employees’ sensitive data (such as health data, criminal records, etc.) for various legitimate purposes. To be eligible to do so under the Draft, companies will have to prepare and submit applications to the PDPC for approval. Not only will this impose significant costs on companies in terms of time, money, and human resources, but it is highly doubtful that the PDPC would have sufficient resources to process the expected volume of applications within the specified timeline.

Article 21 – Cross-Border Transfer of Personal Data

Similarly, Article 21 of the Draft requires that, before transferring Vietnamese citizens’ personal data out of Vietnam, the following four conditions be fulfilled: (i) consent must be obtained from the data subjects; (ii) the original data must be stored in Vietnam; (iii) the data transferor must have proof that the recipient country has personal data protection at a level equal to or higher than the level specified in the Draft; and (iv) a written approval for transfer must be obtained from the PDPC.

The Draft provides an exemption to the foregoing requirement, when there is (a) consent from the data subject, (b) approval from the PDPC, (c) a commitment from the data processor to protect the data, and (d) a commitment from the data processor to apply measures to protect the data. (It is unclear from the wording of the Draft whether the data transferor needs to meet one or all of these criteria to be eligible for the exemption, but presumably all four must be met.)

In order to obtain a written approval from the PDPC, an application must again include an impact assessment report with an assessment of potential harm and measures to manage, minimize or eliminate such harm. The PDPC has 20 working days from the date of submission to process applications for approval.

It is apparent that these requirements in Article 21 could create a barrier to trade and the flow of data, and increase cost, time, and human resources requirements for companies across many industries. For example, there are a significant number of multinational companies operating in Vietnam that need to regularly process personal data, and they usually process such data in a selected country outside of Vietnam or use cloud services with physical servers located outside of Vietnam. This practice is very common for many industries, including e-commerce, banking, travel, education, health care, etc. If all companies sending personal data overseas have to store data in Vietnam, it would create huge costs and additional work and overhead for them. Moreover, the process for applying for approval from the PDPC would unavoidably delay transactions and data transfers, which usually need to be processed instantly.

The Draft is open for public consultation from February 9 to April 9, 2021, and merits the urgent attention of industries, associations, and businesses to share comments with the MPS in order to develop legislation which is effective as well as feasible for implementation, balancing data subjects’ rights with the smooth operation of business.

As the effective date for this legislation could come later this year, it is also important for companies to get a head start on evaluating data transfers and processing within their own organization, and start formulating plans.

For further information about the Draft, please contact us at [email protected].

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

July 6, 2026
Vietnam has introduced an official list of high-risk AI systems, triggering more stringent compliance obligations for developers, suppliers, and deployers operating in the country. On June 30, 2026, the prime minister issued Decision No. 33/2026/QD-TTg (Decision 33), which establishes the List of High-Risk AI Systems under the Law on Artificial Intelligence (AI Law) and Decree No. 142/2026/ND-CP (Decree 142). Decision 33 takes effect on August 15, 2026. Decision 33 is significant because only AI systems included on the list will be subject to the heightened compliance obligations applicable to high-risk AI systems under the AI Law and Decree 142. These include, among others, local presence requirements for foreign providers, mandatory conformity assessment before deployment, comprehensive risk management and data quality documentation, and strict liability for damages even when the provider is fully compliant. Decision 33 also specifies the applicable conformity assessment pathway for each listed system, indicating whether the system must undergo mandatory third-party conformity certification before being placed into use, or whether the provider may self-assess conformity or voluntarily engage a registered or recognized conformity assessment body. Which AI Systems Are Covered? Decision 33 identifies high-risk AI systems across six sectors—the key attributes of which are summarized below. Education: AI systems used for automated assessment, learner ranking, behavioral monitoring, or generating educational content from uncontrolled data sources. Ethnic affairs and religion: AI systems used to automatically score, classify, or rank applications for government ethnic policies; approve or reject regulatory applications; suspend benefits on suspicion of fraud; allocate budgets; or infer and classify individuals by ethnicity or religion for administrative purposes. Healthcare: AI-assisted surgical systems and autonomous AI-powered surgical robots. Banking: AI systems that autonomously conduct electronic banking transactions or make credit approval decisions. Judicial proceedings: Certain large-scale biometric identification systems used in public-interest civil proceedings. Transport: Thirty-one categories
July 6, 2026
Indonesia’s regulation on reporting online intellectual property (IP) infringement provides comprehensive procedural guidance for IP rights holders and their licensees in reporting online infringement complaints. Issued in December 2025 by the Ministry of Law as Regulation No. 47 of 2025 regarding Handling of Intellectual Property Infringement Reports in Electronic Systems, this regulation covers all types of IP rights. It also specifies documentation when reporting infringement, and lays out the procedures for examination, verification, and enforcement actions. Submission of Complaints Complainants may submit reports through the online system of the Directorate General of Intellectual Property (DGIP) or in person at the DGIP office. Complaints may also be filed through an authorized proxy. Under the regulation, complainants are required to provide the following information and documents: Personal details of the complainant; Brief description of the protected work or subject matter (i.e., type of IP and name or address of the infringing website, portal, account, or application, or a link to the location of the infringing content); Complete description of the alleged infringement; Certificate of registration or recordal of the relevant IP; Recordal of IP license agreement, if any; and Other supporting evidence. Verification and Examination Process Upon receiving a complaint, the responsible formality officer may request clarification or additional supporting documents. In the latter case, the complainant must then submit the necessary administrative documents within 14 days of the notification date. Once the documentation is deemed complete and sufficient, the case will be formally registered. Subsequently, the DGIP will establish a verification team to handle online IP violations, which will include the Civil Servant Investigator (PPNS), the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, experts with relevant expertise in IP, and representatives from related associations such as AVISI (Indonesian Video Streaming Association). After examining the report, the team will prepare the Minutes
July 6, 2026
Tilleke & Gibbins has contributed the Vietnam chapter to Data Protection & Privacy 2027, a global guide published by Lexology Panoramic that provides comparative insights into data protection and privacy regimes across multiple jurisdictions. The Vietnam chapter offers a comprehensive overview of the country’s data protection framework, addressing both regulatory structure and practical compliance considerations for businesses operating in or engaging with Vietnam. Topics covered include: Law and the regulatory authority: Legislative framework; data protection authority; cooperation with other data protection authorities; breaches of data protection law; judicial review of data protection authority orders Scope: Exempt sectors and institutions; interception of communications and surveillance laws; other laws; personal information formats; extraterritoriality; covered uses of personal information Legitimate processing of personal information: Lawful bases for processing; grounds for legitimate processing; types of personal information Data handling responsibilities of owners of personal information: Transparency; exemptions from transparency obligations; data accuracy; data minimization; data retention; purpose limitation; automated decision-making Security: Security obligations; notification of data breaches; internal controls Accountability: Data protection officer requirements; record-keeping; risk assessment; design of personal information processing systems Registration and notification: Registration requirements; other transparency duties Sharing and cross-border transfers of personal information: Sharing with processors and service providers; restrictions on third-party disclosures; cross-border transfers; further transfers; localization requirements Rights of individuals: Right of access; other statutory rights; compensation Enforcement: Enforcement mechanisms; exemptions, derogations, and restrictions; further exemptions and restrictions Specific data processing: Cookies and similar technologies; electronic communications marketing; targeted advertising; sensitive personal information; profiling; cloud services The chapter concludes with an update on key legal and regulatory developments over the past year and emerging trends in Vietnam’s data protection landscape. The full Vietnam chapter is available as a PDF through the button below. Readers can also gain 30 days of complementary access to the full Data
July 2, 2026
Thailand’s Electronic Transactions Development Agency (ETDA) released a new version of the draft Act on Artificial Intelligence on July 2, 2026, for a public hearing period expected to be approximately 30 days. The draft act adopts a risk-based regulatory approach modeled in part on international frameworks—particularly the EU’s AI Act—while incorporating provisions tailored to Thailand’s regulatory landscape and digital economy objectives. If enacted in its current form, the law would introduce extraterritorial obligations, a tiered risk classification system, strict liability for AI-related damages, and new transparency requirements for AI-generated content. Scope and Extraterritorial Application The draft act applies to AI development, deployment, or any other action affecting people in Thailand, even if the action occurs outside the country. Of note: This extraterritorial reach creates compliance obligations for global AI companies whose systems impact Thai residents or consumers, even if the provider has no physical presence in Thailand. Foreign AI providers serving Thai deployers or users must appoint a local coordinator or authorized representative. Depending on the type of AI system, the representative may need full authority to act on behalf of the provider without any limitation of liability. Certain activities are exempt from the draft act’s oversight, including AI used by natural persons solely for personal or household activities, AI for educational research conducted by higher education institutions with ethics committee approval, research and development activities conducted prior to distribution or service provision, and other AI systems prescribed by royal decree. Risk-Based Classification Framework The draft act establishes a tiered risk classification system with three main categories: Prohibited AI. The act outright prohibits AI systems employing cognitive-behavioral manipulation using subliminal techniques, AI systems causing unfair broad-scale discrimination from processing irrelevant data, and other categories of serious risk as determined by announcement of a forthcoming committee that will be responsible